Effects of Hybrid Work Model on Employees and Staff’s Work Productivity: A Literature Review

Abstract

COVID-19 had remarkable effects on different sectors and industries that pushed them to cope and adjust to the abrupt change in all facets globally. Including universities and colleges, management prepared an effective action plan in response to the current crisis. Institutions decided to adopt the hybrid work model where employees, including the management and educators, work by turns from home or remotely and on-site. The study uses the literature review to investigate available scientific literature on the possible effects of the hybrid work model on the employees' work productivity, specifically in a higher education institution. The sources and references came from research databases such as Google Scholar, the Open Access Directory Journals, and other websites. The results suggest that employees should feel and experience positive well-being, a sense of belongingness in terms of collaboration, and continuous innovation to cope with the new set-up of hybridity, which will not compromise their work productivity.

Full text

159
International Peer Reviewed Journal
Eects of Hybrid Work Model
on Employees and Sta’s Work
Productivity: A Literature Review
JINELLA MARIE M. CASTAÑEDA
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7685-6888
jinella.castaneda@gmail.com
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines
GENARO V. JAPOS
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-0988
gvjapos@pup.edu.ph
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines
WENIFREDA R. TEMPLONUEVO
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3651-0928
wfrtemplonuevo521@gmail.com
Jesus Is Lord Colleges Foundation, Inc.
Bocaue, Bulacan, Philippines
Originality: 100% • Grammarly: 100% • Plagiarism: 0%
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 had remarkable eects on dierent sectors and industries that
pushed them to cope and adjust to the abrupt change in all facets globally.
Including universities and colleges, management prepared an eective action
Vol. 50 · October 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v50i1.537
Print ISSN 2012-3981
Online ISSN 2244-0445
is work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

160
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
plan in response to the current crisis. Institutions decided to adopt the hybrid
work model where employees, including the management and educators, work
by turns from home or remotely and on-site. e study uses the literature
review to investigate available scientic literature on the possible eects of the
hybrid work model on the employees’ work productivity, specically in a higher
education institution. e sources and references came from research databases
such as Google Scholar, the Open Access Directory Journals, and other websites.
e results suggest that employees should feel and experience positive well-being,
a sense of belongingness in terms of collaboration, and continuous innovation
to cope with the new set-up of hybridity, which will not compromise their work
productivity.
Keywords — Institutional Research, attribution theory, eects, hybrid work
model, well-being, collaboration, innovation, review of literature, employees,
higher education institution, Philippines
INTRODUCTION
e highly infectious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has profoundly
impacted many institutions globally, including higher education and public and
private school systems. e pandemic has plagued the system of education, added
to the workload of faculty and sta, and forced many colleges, universities, and
schools to remain closed or operate with minimal resources to minimize the risk
of infection (Dhawan, 2020; Rapanta et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021).
Universities and higher education institutions were forced to close during
the consecutive COVID-19 lockdowns. As a result, most educational institutions
implemented emergency remote teaching, and students’ online learning relied
heavily on digital technology support. Although online and distance learning
is familiar at the university level, this was a new and sudden experience for
university students who usually attend face-to-face classes. (Ahmed et al., 2020;
Iqbal et al., 2022; Van der Graaf et al., 2021).
e shift to online teaching was a challenge for both teachers and students.
In addition, transforming online courses has been a major challenge, especially
for academic programs where collaboration and building social meaning are
essential (Lapitan et al., 2021; Tomej et al., 2022; Nechita et al., 2023).
e pandemic’s disrupted outcomes may last longer in the education sector
and have a negative impact on educators’ interests and performance (Onyema et

161
International Peer Reviewed Journal
al., 2020). While transforming traditional educational institutions into virtual
organizations improves teaching and learning practices, it also poses challenges
for leaders, organizations, and employees (Bolden & O’Regan, 2016; Kohntopp
& McCann, 2019; Kohntopp & McCann, 2020; Vial, 2019). Pandemic-induced
work transformations have compelled educational institutions to reconsider their
leadership practices toward sta (Wiradendi Wolor et al., 2020), have raised
the concern about sta training to cope with the challenges of technological
emergence (Miao & Holmes, 2022), and have created uncertainty to endure
secure employment (Onyema et al., 2020). Besides, the traditional education
system’s transformation into virtual organizations has increased academic sta
stress (García-González & Ramírez-Montoya, 2020) that inuenced their
performance.
In times of crisis, universities must be resilient. In the educational system,
resilience is the ability to overcome obstacles and challenges–trauma, tragedy,
and crises and emerge stronger, wiser, and more powerful personally (Henderson,
2012). e educational system must prepare to move forward and address the
new normal following the crisis. Higher education is necessary for resilience and
must address teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic.
According to the Manila Bulletin (2022), schools may request that the blended
learning modality be continued or adopted due to exceptional circumstances such
as delays in school facility repair or construction. Furthermore, higher education
institutions (HEIs) may elect to design and deliver their degree programs online.
Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education, Prospero de Vera III
(CHED), stated that on-site or hybrid learning would begin in the second
semester of the School Year (SY) 2022-2023 (Mocon-Ciriaco, 2022).
With the institution’s support, employees from teaching and non-teaching
departments adapted to the drastic change. However, employees being used
to the exibility of their work set-up could lead to needing more comfortable,
especially when working from home. In addition, employees’ productivity should
be highlighted so that tasks given will not be compromised and they will not feel
that there are no boundaries between work and personal time that would lead
them the other way around. Hybrid work is a versatile work model that combines
in-oce, remote, and on-the-go workers. It allows employees to work wherever
and however they are most productive (Cisco, 2023).
Hybrid work is a people-rst approach to workforce management that boosts
while addressing the signicant challenges of remote work, such as isolation and
job satisfaction, and a lack of community. Employees with a hybrid work model

162
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
have the more remarkable ability to work from home and exibility or anywhere
they can be productive. e workplace is no longer contained within the four
walls of the corporate oce with hybrid work—it is an ecosystem of employees
working from home, in co-working spaces, and in the oce. Team members can
migrate between various locations depending on the work they need to be done
(Cisco, 2023).
Hybrid work continues to grow. Some companies resisted, arguing against
the concept of remote work. Companies mentioned productivity concerns and
tactical problems that limited supervisors’ ability to observe and coach employees
(Robinsons, 2020).
Moreover, according to Tsipursky (2023), hybrid work environments have
become increasingly popular in recent years, where employees work from home
and in the oce. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this
trend, forcing many businesses to adopt remote work arrangements. While
hybrid work has many advantages, such as the increased ability to attract top
talent from anywhere and exibility, it also has disadvantages. It is challenging
to maintain productivity when employees are all working in dierent physical
locations.
Supervisors could nd innovative ways to connect with and manage workers
from afar by ensuring their colleagues feel heard and know they are not alone.
Exhibiting heightened sensitivity to emotional intelligence, particularly when
physical isolation has become a necessity, is vital (Feast, 2020).
In line with this, Teevan (2021) cited that worker productivity is dicult to
dene and quantify. However, researchers approximate two types of data: self-
reported worker data, asking people if they feel productive, and worker activity
data. For example, one year into the pandemic, Microsoft’s Work Trend Index
survey revealed that the self-assessed productivity of over 30,000 global workers
outside of Microsoft remained constant or increased. e results of Microsoft’s
annual employee survey were similar. Regarding activity data, one Microsoft
division found that the number of features checked in by developers per hour
increased by 1.5%, while focus time increased by 6%.
erefore, the researchers were inspired to study the eects of the hybrid
work model on the employees’ productivity, especially in their well-being,
collaboration, and pursuit of innovation in the current situation. As a result, this
paper presents and discusses published literature and studies that are relevant to
the study.

163
International Peer Reviewed Journal
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
is study intended to identify the eects of the hybrid work model on
employees’ productivity in a higher education institution, specically on their
well-being, collaboration, and innovation, working either remotely or on-site.
METHODOLOGY
is study uses a literature review that provides a description, summary,
and critical evaluation concerning the research problems being investigated.
e sources and references are from survey books and scholarly articles and are
relevant to the particular issues in the dierent areas of the research (Fink, 2019).
A literature review follows an organizational structure and combines summary
and synthesis, frequently within specic conceptual categories. A summary is a
recitation of the key points from the source. A synthesis, on the other hand, is
a reorganization or reshuing of that information in such a way that it informs
how to investigate a research problem (Fink, 2019; Hart, 1998; Jesson et al.,
2011; Knopf, 2006; Ridley, 2012).
e researchers selected relevant literature and studies to determine the
eects of the hybrid work model on the employees’ work productivity in a higher
education institution, specically in terms of the well-being, collaboration, and
innovation of the subject.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Attribution eory
According to Heider (2013), the Attribution eory concerns how people
perceive information, how they interpret events, and how these events form
causal chain judgments. No one would act or decide unless they attributed it to
a cause or factor.
Attribution theory deals with how individuals relate and make sense of the
social world. It is more concerned with how people interpret events in their
environment and how their interpretations inuence their thinking and behavior.
Attribution theory assesses the explanation people give to specic behaviors; it
considers how individuals interpret their behaviors (Heider, 2013).
Moreover, all behavior is determined by either internal or external factors.
External attribution is also called situational attribution. Causality is attributed

164
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
to an external factor, agent, or force. Outside factors fall outside of an individual’s
control. Leaving an individual with no choice. So behavior is inuenced, limited,
or entirely determined by inuences outside of an individual’s control. erefore,
the subject does not feel responsible. A generic example is the weather (Heider,
2013).
According to Krampe et al. (2021), people with specic personality
characteristics are well-equipped, whereas others are particularly vulnerable in
times of crisis. According to the current study, people with an external locus of
control are especially vulnerable. On the other hand, Individuals with an internal
locus of control should be more likely to see complex tasks as challenges rather
than as something to be avoided. ey should thus be more hopeful, active, and
more likely to take responsibility for themselves and their environment (Rotter,
1966).
Latent Variables of the Study
is part of the study is the literature and studies that are relevant and
related to the researchers’ study. ese will be used to understand further and to
determine the eects and signicance of these variables on the employees’ of a
higher education institution.
Hybrid Work Model
According to Vidhyaa and Ravichandran (2022), hybrid work is a exible
work model that allows for a mix of in-oce, remote, and on-the-go employees.
It allows employees to work wherever and whenever they are most productive.
Hybrid work is a people-rst approach to workforce management that drives
increased productivity and job satisfaction while addressing remote work’s
signicant challenges, such as isolation and a lack of community. Employees who
work in a hybrid work model have more exibility and can work from home or
anywhere they can be productive. e workplace is no longer contained within
the four walls of the corporate oce with hybrid work.—it is an ecosystem of
employees working from home, in co-working spaces, and in the oce. Team
members can migrate between various locations depending on the work they
need to be done.
Hybridity combines a physical work arrangement and a remote work system
in the workplace (Cook et al., 2020). For example, some employees work on-site
at the company or organization, while others work remotely via the internet. is
arrangement could include the same group of people who come to the company’s
location and remotely work the rest of the week.

165
International Peer Reviewed Journal
e hybrid working system ensures that the organization that uses it benets
from remote working. Flexibility at work, lower labor costs, increased worker
satisfaction, and better environmental experiences are all part of the package that
comes with remote work. e benet of the traditional working system is also
included. ere is a guarantee of hands-on interaction with the existing culture
in the workplace. Likewise, there comes the advantage of informal networking,
more likely in-person collaboration, and the added benets of a structure to help
foster creativity. e situation of hybridity refers to the coexistence of the benets
of traditional and remote workplace systems (Malhotra & Reay, 2019).
e ndings of the study by Waller (2022) show that the failing models are
all location-centric, attaching some rigid on-site requirements. Only one model
outperformed the rest: “hybrid-exible,” which allows leaders and employees to
choose where they work. A hybrid-exible model that incorporates other vital
elements of human-centric work design, such as location exibility and the
practices of intentional collaboration and empathy-based management, is even
more successful.
Furthermore, the recent study by De Castro (2022) found that a hybrid
or remote work set-up is the next preferred evolution of the workplace, based
on the 2022 survey “Going Hybrid: e Future of Work,” a local Software as a
Service (SaaS) company, hosted the event. 91% of the 8,184 employees polled
desired a hybrid or remote workplace. Of the remote employees, over 70% love
their current remote set-up, but only around 43% feel engaged. According to the
survey, 80% of human resources (HR) administrators and managers preferred
hybrid or remote work, but 64.6% needed assistance guring out how to make
the arrangement work.
Well-being
Aryanti et al. (2020) cited that workplace well-being is an application
component of subjective well-being in a work environment. Workplace well-
being that will impact employee welfare is crucial in determining long-term
sustainability in an organization. Workplace well-being is an obligation because
improving workplace well-being will positively impact overall performance.
According to Anwarsyah et al. (2012), workplace well-being is a sense of
prosperity obtained from work that is related to the feelings of the workers in
general (core eect) and the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the work (work
values).
Individual experience, whether emotional or social, clearly inuences the
person at work and in the non-working domain. Workers spend about one-third

166
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
of their time at work and still carry the work even after leaving the workplace.
Welfare can potentially aect workers and organizations negatively. Workers
with poor welfare may be less productive, make low-quality decisions, be more
vulnerable to absenteeism at work and consistently reduce overall contributions
to the organizations (De Simone, 2014).
Collaboration
According to the study of Yang et al. (2022), Microsoft’s business groups
became less interconnected as the company transitioned to rm-wide remote
work. It also decreased the number of ties bridging structural gaps in the
company’s informal collaboration network, causing people to spend less time
collaborating with the remaining bridging ties. Furthermore, the transition to
rm-wide remote work required employees to spend more time away from the
oce, a more signicant share of their collaboration time with their stronger
ties, better suited to information transfer, and less time with weak connections
because they are more likely to provide new information.
Baum et al. (2012) cited that previous research has also shown that workers’
performance is inuenced not only by the network’s structure and the strength
of its ties but also by its temporal dynamics. e advantages of various times
vary with age, and people benet from shifting their network position. (Burt
& Merluzzi, 2016; Kneeland, 2019; Kumar & Zaheer, 2019), adding new ties
(Soda et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021) and reconnecting with dormant ties (Levin
et al., 2011).
In addition, the existing theoretical perspectives and empirical results of
Lengel and Daft (1984) suggest that employees’ communication modes impact
knowledge transfer and collaboration. On the theoretical front, media richness
theory posits that more prosperous. In-person interaction, for example, is best
suited to communicating complex information and ideas. Furthermore, Dennis et
al. (2008) media synchronicity theory proposes that synchronous communication
channels (such as video calls) are better suited for information transmission. In
contrast, asynchronous communication channels (such as email) are better suited
for information convergence. A rich body of empirical research also documents
the numerous implications of communication media selection for organizations.
Previous research, for example, has shown that establishing a rapport, which is
a crucial step, and an essential precursor to knowledge transfer, is impeded by
email use, according to Morris et al. (2022), and that in-person and phone/video
communication are stronger predictors of positive team performance than email
and instant messaging (IM) communication (Pentland, 2012).

167
International Peer Reviewed Journal
According to Yang et al. (2022), remote work eliminates in-person
communication; however, results show that people must replace in-person
interactions with video and voice calls. Broad remote work decreased observed
synchronous communication, such as scheduled meetings and audio/video calls.
In comparison, the ndings of remote work caused employees to communicate
more through more asynchronous media—sending more emails and instant
messages. According to media richness theory, media synchronicity theory, and
previous empirical studies, these communication media options employees may
nd it more challenging to communicate and communicate eectively and
converge on the meaning of complex information.
Innovation
Traditionally, an organization’s performance has been measured using
nancial indicators such as prot, market share, earnings, and growth rate
(Demirbag et al., 2006). However, non-nancial indicators also must be
considered in accessing performance, which usually develops in line with human
resource outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction, productivity,
and quality (Abdalkrim, 2013; Dyer & Reeves, 1995).
According to Sadikoglu and Zehir (2010), it was found that employees’
performance, including productivity, is inuenced by innovation. So with that,
innovation through employees’ generation of ideas for new products and services
would eventually improve competitiveness, improve the administrative process,
increase eciencies and eective work management (Walker et al., 2010),
increase organizational tness (Choi et al., 2009), improve quality performance
(Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010).
Additionally, innovation will increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of
output, attendance on the job, and eciency and eectiveness of work completed
(Tinorei, 2011).
Employee’s Productivity
e notion of employee productivity is familiar in management (Palmer &
Dean, 1973) as it has become multidimensional (Adeinat & Kassim, 2019). It
has now been associated with motivation, work-life balance, work environment,
internet, service prot chain, and compensation. As a result, organizations are
becoming increasingly concerned about how to increase the productivity of
employees (Burke & Hsieh, 2006; Yunus & Ernawati, 2018). Mainstream research
revealed that the productivity of employees is associated with organizational
performance; the higher the employee productivity, the better the organization’s

168
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
performance (Yunus & Ernawati, 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019).
Yunus and Ernawati (2018) dened employee productivity as the capability
to produce goods and services to achieve the organization’s goals. Similarly, Iqbal
et al. (2019) dened employee productivity as impersonal trust; therefore, a lack
of trust between employees and employers can lower employees’ productivity,
hindering the organization’s performance.
Moreover, various other factors inuence employee productivity, and the
most important is the work environment in which people work (Awan & Tahir,
2015; Al-Shammari, 2015). e productivity of employees reects the eciency
level indicating the time taken to perform a particular task. When employees tend
to be productive, they perform a particular task more eciently and eectively
within a given period; on the contrary, they take longer to perform a particular
task costing money if they are unproductive at work.
Finally, employee productivity is also signicantly inuenced by employee
commitment, satisfaction (Adeinat & Kassim, 2019), employee well-being
(Sharma et al., 2016), and engagement (Lee et al., 2017).
Research Hypotheses and eir Justication
is section of the study will support why the researchers came up with these
hypotheses and the ne points of the current study.
Improved well-being in the workplace can reduce cases of presenteeism
and absenteeism. Higher levels of workplace well-being correlate with higher
productivity and happiness among employees. It will also often improve a
company’s protability and eciency.
Consequently, with the support of the above-stated literature and studies,
the researchers used and will further test and verify that:
H1: Well-being has a signicant and positive eect on the employees and
sta’s work productivity.
Furthermore, Haddon (2018), Pfeer (2018), and Isham et al. (2020) stated
that well-being is associated with higher levels of employee engagement and
lower levels of absenteeism and turnover.
Human relations theory states that higher employee well-being is associated
with higher morale, which, in turn, leads to higher productivity. Emotions
theory argues that employees’ positive emotions lead to improved attitudes and
motivation, hence better job outcomes and organizational citizenship (Isham et
al., 2020).
e eect on employees’ well-being should be considered, as the employees’
collaboration towards work productivity even in times of restructuring the work

169
International Peer Reviewed Journal
set-up they got used to, such as the hybrid work setting.
Collaboration is essential for creating a more transparent, productive, and
happy workplace. Employees who collaborate by sharing ideas and skills feel more
connected to one another are more engaged, and contribute to an environment
of innovation and growth. is has been shown to improve employee retention
and organizational success. In addition, collaboration is the key to keeping
employees engaged and productive — no matter where they work — as remote
and hybrid work settings become more viable alternatives to in-oce work after
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Collaboration that is eective fosters a sense of belonging, drives innovation,
makes employees feel like valued contributors and encourages them to do their
best. Furthermore, because it improves productivity, collaboration is essential for
both performance and maintaining a healthy work-life balance (Borrego, 2021).
Furthermore, collaboration improves how a team works together and solves
problems, according to Ribeiro (2020). is results in more innovation, ecient
processes, tremendous success, and better communication. erefore, with the
support of the above-stated literature and studies, the researcher used and will
further test and verify that:
H2: Collaboration has a signicant and positive eect on the employee and
sta’s work productivity.
e workplace is evolving quickly, becoming more hybrid and remote.
To spark innovation, companies and facility managers (FMs) must create an
innovative culture that caters to all employees, regardless of location or work
schedule. Implementing workplace innovation begins at the top. Companies
that want to maximize innovation must provide a conducive environment and
initiatives for all employees. Employers must collaborate with FMs to design
a supportive and collaborative workspace for remote and in-oce workers to
improve innovation and creative thinking (Mason, 2021).
According to EIPA (2018), workplace innovation is how organizations
divide the work performed in dierent jobs. It is an organizational model which
explicitly focuses on new methods of improving the working environment to
help employees work in a way that brings out the best in their capabilities and
helps them work, perform, and live better. e critical objective of workplace
innovation is to improve employees’ motivation, engagement, and performance.
In addition, it aims at giving back energy and pleasure in work.
Salesforce UK (2021) mentioned that there is a beautiful symbiosis between
innovation and productivity. e more innovative a company is, the more it can
drive productivity. is increased productivity allows the workforce to be more

170
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
creative and innovative. On and on the cycle goes as the company grows. ese
gave the inspiration for one of the hypotheses:
H3: Innovation has a signicant and positive eect on the employee’s and
sta’s work productivity.
As the eects of the pandemic waned, most businesses adopted a new work
structure that combines remote working with the pre-pandemic in-oce set-up.
Enter a hybrid work model. e hybrid structure provides employee exibility
and the benets of both work arrangements. However, some business leaders
have strong opinions about one structure or the other and wonder if hybrid work
increases productivity. Hybrid working enables employees to choose their work
location. Giving employees the ability to create their work schedule according
to their needs and personal aeries is one of the benets that positively aects
productivity levels (Koeva, 2022).
Clarke (2021) states that not all organizations and businesses measure
productivity using the same performance standards. On the other hand, employee
productivity usually depends on their employees’ positive behavior and capability
of meeting employee performance goals and objectives by management.
Research conducted by Bloom et al. (2014) from Stanford University, hybrid
work led to more productive employees. It combines the needs of businesses to
have employees in their oces and allows employees the exibility to work from
home and gain all of the benets from that. erefore, researchers would like to
investigate further:
H4: Eects of the hybrid work model has signicant and positive eects on
the employee’s and sta’s work productivity.
Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies
is study aims to determine and set a test in nding the results that will
answer the signicant eects of the hybrid work model on the employees’
productivity in a selected higher education institution. e researchers got
interested in further studying how these eects of hybrid work set-up, specically
the well-being, collaboration, and innovation, aect employees’ productivity
given the exibility to work either at the very comfort of their home, remotely,
or on-site.
With that, researchers sought to study further and look for gaps that
concern with hybrid work model that researchers aim to bridge these gaps. e
most signicant challenges of hybrid work are a need for adequate work tools,
disconnect from the culture of the organization, impaired collaboration and
relationships, and disrupted work processes (Wigert & White, 2022).

171
International Peer Reviewed Journal
By thoroughly investigating the related and suited literature and studies,
researchers found the framework that can support this study: the attribution
theory.
LITERATURE CITED
Abdalkrim, G. M. (2013). e impact of strategic planning activities
on private sector organizations performance in Sudan: An empirical
research.International Journal of Business and Management,8(10), 134.
Adeinat, I., & Kassim, N. (2019). Extending the service prot chain: the
mediating eect of employee productivity.International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management.
Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan, M. E. M., Helal, M. S. A., Banik, N., Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan,
M. E. M., ... & Banik, N. (2020). Hybrid instruction: Post covid-19 solution
for higher education in Bangladesh.development,61, 8.
Al-Shammari, S. A. (2015). e Eect of Work Environment on Employees’
Productivity.International Journal of Science and Research,1554.
Anwarsyah, W. I., Salendu, A., & Radikun, T. B. S. (2012). Hubungan antara job
demands dengan workplace well-being pada pekerja shift.Jurnal Psikologi:
PITUTUR,1(1), 29-40.
Aryanti, R. D., Sari, E. Y. D., & Widiana, H. S. (2020, October). A literature
review of workplace well-being. InInternational Conference on Community
Development (ICCD 2020)(pp. 605-609). Atlantis Press.
Awan, A. G., & Tahir, M. T. (2015). Impact of working environment on
employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies
in Pakistan.European Journal of Business and Management,7(1), 329-345.
Baum, J. A., McEvily, B., & Rowley, T. J. (2012). Better with age? Tie longevity
and the performance implications of bridging and closure. Organization
science,23(2), 529-546.
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from
home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment.e Quarterly journal of
economics,130(1), 165-218.

172
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
Bolden, R., & O’Regan, N. (2016). Digital disruption and the future of
leadership: An interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of Centrica
and MasterCard.Journal of Management Inquiry,25(4), 438-446.
Borrego, T., (2021). Why Workplace Collaboration is the Secret Sauce to Higher
Retention and Better Business Outcomes. http://bit.ly/3YyZc6u
Burke, L. A., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Optimizing xed and variable compensation
costs for employee productivity. International Journal of Productivity and
performance management,55(2), 155-162.
Burt, R. S., & Merluzzi, J. (2016). Network oscillation.Academy of Management
Discoveries,2(4), 368-391.
Choi, S., Jang, H., & Hyun, J. (2009). Correlation between innovation
and performance of construction rms. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering,36(11), 1722-1731.
Cisco, W. (2023). What us hybrid work and what is hybrid work model. https://
www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html
Clarke, M. (2021). e Impact of Hybrid Work on Productivity. http://bit.
ly/3mvf90e
Cook, J., Mor, Y., & Santos, P. (2020). ree cases of hybridity in learning spaces:
Towards a design for a Zone of Possibility.British Journal of Educational
Technology,51(4), 1155-1167.
De Castro, M. (2022) Most Filipinos want a hybrid or remote workplace – HR
study https://bit.ly/3IzyYL2
De Simone, S. (2014). Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace.International
journal of business and social science,5(12).
Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M., & Zaim, S. (2006). An analysis
of the relationship between TQM implementation and organizational
performance: evidence from Turkish SMEs. Journal of manufacturing
technology management,17(6), 829-847.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and
communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity.MIS quarterly,
575-600.

173
International Peer Reviewed Journal
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19
crisis.Journal of educational technology systems,49(1), 5-22.
Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and rm performance:
what do we know and where do we need to go?.International Journal of
human resource management,6(3), 656-670.
EIPA. (2018). How to increase employee productivity and performance with
Workplace Innovation. http://bit.ly/3T0Kl3M
Feast, J. (2020). What is hybrid work and what is hybrid work model. Retrieved
from https://www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html
Fink, A. (2019).Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper.
Sage publications.
García-González, A., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2020). Social entrepreneurship
competency in higher education: an analysis using mixed methods.Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship, 1-19.
Haddon, J. (2018). e impact of employees’ well-being on performance in the
workplace.Strategic HR Review.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science
Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://
bit.ly/41B2CZ4
Heider, F. (2013).e psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.
Henderson, N. (2012). What is resiliency and why is it so important.Resiliency
in Action. https://www. resiliency. com/what-is-resiliency/
Iqbal, N., Ahmad, M., & Allen, M. M. (2019). Unveiling the relationship
between e-HRM, impersonal trust and employee productivity.Management
Research Review.
Iqbal, S. A., Ashiq, M., Rehman, S. U., Rashid, S., & Tayyab, N. (2022).
Students’ perceptions and experiences of online education in Pakistani
Universities and Higher Education Institutes during COVID-19.Education
Sciences,12(3), 166.

174
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
Isham, A., Mair, S., & Jackson, T. (2020). Wellbeing and productivity: a review
of the literature.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review:
Traditional and systematic techniques.
Kneeland, M. K. (2019).Network churn: A theoretical and empirical consideration
of a dynamic process on performance (Doctoral dissertation, New York
University).
Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science &
Politics,39(1), 127-132.
Koeva, E. (2022). Does Hybrid Work Increase Productivity? [A Surprising
Answer]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/3ymtQWh
Kohntopp, T., & McCann, J. (2019). Virtual Leadership in Organizations:
Potential Competitive Advantage?.
Kohntopp, T., & McCann, J. (2020). Leadership in virtual organizations:
Inuence on workplace engagement.e Palgrave Handbook of Workplace
Well-Being, 1-26.
Krampe, H., Danbolt, L. J., Haver, A., Stålsett, G., & Schnell, T. (2021). Locus
of control moderates the association of COVID-19 stress and general mental
distress: Results of a Norwegian and a German-speaking cross-sectional
survey.BMC psychiatry,21(1), 1-13.
Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019). Ego-network stability and innovation in
alliances.Academy of Management Journal,62(3), 691-716.
Lapitan Jr, L. D., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz,
J. M. (2021). An eective blended online teaching and learning strategy
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35,
116-131.
Lee, J., Patterson, P. G., & Ngo, L. V. (2017). In pursuit of service productivity
and customer satisfaction: the role of resources. European Journal of
Marketing,51(11/12), 1836-1855.
Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1984).An exploratory analysis of the relationship
between media richness and managerial information processing. Texas A and M

175
International Peer Reviewed Journal
Univ College Station Dept of Management.
Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Dormant ties: e value of
reconnecting.Organization Science,22(4), 923-939.
Malhotra, N., & Reay, T. (2019). Hybridity and power in the microfoundations
of professional work. InMicrofoundations of institutions(Vol. 65, pp. 241-
255). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Manila Bulletin. (2022). MB Daily News Update: Public schools may still
use blended learning if. http://bit.ly/41E1KmI
Mason, N. (2021). Innovation in the workplace: 5 Ways to boost productivity
and engagement. http://bit.ly/3T4d0oA
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2022). International Forum on AI and Education:
Ensuring AI as a Common Good to Transform Education, 7-8 December;
synthesis report.
Mocon-Ciriaco, C. (2022). CHED issues clarification on latest order on
in-person learning for degree programs Retrieved from http://bit.
ly/3kzfvCz
Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & ompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or
lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations.Group Dynamics:
eory, Research, and Practice,6(1), 89.
Nechita, F., Rățulea, G. G., Borcoman, M., Sorea, D., & Leluțiu, L. M.
(2023). Hybrid Events as a Sustainable Educational Approach for Higher
Education.Trends in Higher Education,2(1), 29-44.
Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G.,
Sharma, A., & Alsayed, A. O. (2020). Impact of Coronavirus pandemic on
education.Journal of Education and Practice,11(13), 108-121.
Palmer, W. W., & Dean, C. C. (1973). Increasing employee productivity and
reducing turnover.Training & Development Journal.
Pentland, A. S. (2012). e new science of building great teams.Harvard business
review,90(4), 60-69.

176
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
Pfeer, J. (2018). e overlooked essentials of employee well-being.McKinsey
Quarterly,3(2018), 82-89.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online
university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher
presence and learning activity.Postdigital science and education,2, 923-945.
Ribeiro, S. (2020). The Real Benefits of Team Collaboration in the
Workplace. http://bit.ly/3kVghtz
Ridley, D. (2012). e literature review: A step-by-step guide for students.
Robinsons, B. (2022). 3 New Studies End Debate over Effectiveness of
Hybrid and Remote Work. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/41wLgwJ
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement.Psychological monographs: General and applied,80(1), 1.
Sadikoglu, E., & Zehir, C. (2010). Investigating the eects of innovation
and employee performance on the relationship between total quality
management practices and rm performance: An empirical study of Turkish
rms.International journal of production economics,127(1), 13-26.
Salesforce UK, (2021). e Link between Productivity and Innovation. https://
bit.ly/3mkl206
Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-
to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19,
post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems,50(2), 140-171.
Soda, G., Mannucci, P. V., & Burt, R. S. (2021). Networks, creativity, and time:
Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Academy of
Management Journal,64(4), 1164-1190.
Teevan, J. (2021). Let’s Redene “Productivity” for the Hybrid Era.Harvard
Business Review (HBR)(09 2021). https://hbr. org/2021/09/lets-redene-
productivity-for-the-hybrid-era.
Tinorei, C. (2011).e unique factors aecting employee performance in non
prot organisations(Vol. 7). University Of South Africa.

177
International Peer Reviewed Journal
Tomej, K., Liburd, J., Blichfeldt, B. S., & Hjalager, A. M. (2022). Blended and
(not so) splendid teaching and learning: Higher education insights from
university teachers during the Covid-19 pandemic.International Journal of
Educational Research Open,3, 100144.
Tsipursky, G. (2023). Recognizing and Rewarding Hybrid Work Productivity.
Retrieved from http://bit.ly/3KMq3J2
Van Der Graaf, L., Dunajeva, J., Siarova, H., Bankauskaite, R., & Research for
CULT Committee. (2021).Education and Youth in Post-COVID-19 Europe:
Crisis Eects and Policy Recommendations. European Parliament, Policy
Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies.
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda.Managing Digital Transformation, 13-66.
Vidhyaa, B., & Ravichandran, M. (2022). A Literature Review on Hybrid Work
Model.Journal homepage: www. ijrpr. com ISSN,2582, 7421.
Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation
and organizational performance: e mediating eect of performance
management. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21(2),
367-386.
Waller, G. (2022). Think Hybrid Work Doesn’t Work. The Data Disagree.
Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3ZuCvkF
Wigert, B., & White, J. (2022). e Advantages and Challenges of Hybrid
Work.On Gallup. Retrieved December,1(2022), 8.
Wiradendi Wolor, C., Solikhah, S., Fidhyallah, N. F., & Lestari, D. P. (2020).
Eectiveness of e-training, e-leadership, and work life balance on employee
performance during COVID-19.Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and
Business,7(10).
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jae, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J.
(2022). e eects of remote work on collaboration among information
workers.Nature human behaviour,6(1), 43-54.
Yunus, E. N., & Ernawati, E. (2018). Productivity paradox? e impact of oce
redesign on employee productivity.International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management,67(9), 1918-1939.

178
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022
Zeng, A., Fan, Y., Di, Z., Wang, Y., & Havlin, S. (2021). Fresh teams are
associated with original and multidisciplinary research. Nature Human
Behaviour,5(10), 1314-1322.